Here's Why You Should Be Afraid Of Someone Stealing Your Voter ID

Voter IDs laws have become a political
flashpoint in what's gearing up to be another close
election year. Supporters say the laws — which 30
states have now enacted in some form — are needed to
combat voter fraud, while critics see them as a tactic to
disenfranchise voters.

We've taken a step back to look at the facts behind the laws and
break down the issues at the heart of the debate.

So what are these laws?

They are measures intended to ensure that a registered voter is
who he says he is and not an impersonator trying to cast a
ballot in someone else's name. The laws, most of which have
been passed in the last several years, require that registered
voters show ID before they're allowed to vote. Exactly what
they need to show varies. Some states require a
government-issued photo, while in others a current utility bill
or bank statement is sufficient.

As a registered voter, I thought I always had to supply
some form of ID during an election.

Not quite. Per federal
law, first-time voters who registered by mail must present
a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement. Some
states generally advise voters bring some
form of photo ID. But prior to the 2006 election, no state
ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID
as a condition to voting. Indiana in 2006 became the first
state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that
was upheld two
years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why are these voter ID laws so strongly
opposed?

Voting law advocates contend these laws disproportionately
affect elderly, minority and low-income groups that tend to
vote Democratic. Obtaining photo ID can be costly and
burdensome, with even free state ID requiring documents like a
birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places.
According to a
study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of
voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people
in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices. During
closing arguments in a recent case over Texas's voter ID law,
a lawyer
for the state brushed aside these obstacles as the
"reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas."

Attorney General Eric
Holder and others have compared the
laws to a poll
tax, in which Southern states during the Jim Crow era
imposed voting fees, which discouraged the working class and
poor, many of whom were minorities, from voting.

There have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in
a conviction. A
New York Times analysis from 2007 identified 120 cases
filed by the Justice Department over five years. These cases,
many of which stemmed from mistakenly filled registration forms
or misunderstanding over voter eligibility, resulted in 86
convictions.

There are "very few documented cases," said UC-Irvine professor
and election law specialist Rick Hasen. "When you do see
election fraud, it invariably involves election officials
taking steps to change election results or it involves absentee
ballots which voter ID laws can't prevent," he said.

One of the most vocal supporters of strict voter ID laws, Texas
Attorney General Greg Abbott, told
the Houston Chronicle earlier this month that his
office has prosecuted about 50 cases of voter fraud in recent
years. "I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it
must be stopped, and that voter id is one way to prevent
cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the
electoral system," he told the paper. Abbott's office did not
immediately respond to ProPublica's request for comment.

How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by
the laws, and could they really affect the election?

It's not clear.

According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S.
citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don't have
government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn't represent all
voters likely to vote, just
those eligible to vote.

State figures also can be hard to nail down. In Pennsylvania,
nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's
8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards,
according to an analysis
of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State
officials, on the other hand, place this number at between
80,000 and 90,000.

In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of
photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in
the 2008 general election, later analysis has
revealed.

As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by
Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog
estimates they could decrease voter turnout
anywhere between
0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide
margin, but it all depends on the
electoral landscape.

"We don't know exactly how much these news laws will affect
turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans," said Hasen,
author of the recently
released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the
Next Election Meltdown. "But there's no question that in a very
close election, they could be enough to make a difference in
the outcome."

When did voter ID laws get passed — and which states
have the strictest ones?

The first such law was passed as early as
2003, but momentum has picked up in recent
years. In
2011 alone, legislators in 34 states introduced bills
requiring voters show photo ID — 14 of those states already had
existing voter ID laws but lawmakers sought to toughen
statutes, mainly to require proof of photo identification.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has
a helpful
breakdown of states' voter ID laws and how they vary.

Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas and Pennsylvania have the
toughest versions. These states won't allow voters to cast a
regular ballot without first showing valid photo ID. Other
states with photo ID laws offer some more flexibility by
providing voters with several alternatives.

What happens if a voter can't show valid photo ID in
these states?

These voters are entitled to a provisional
ballot. To ensure their votes count, however, they must
produce the mandatory ID within a certain time frame and
affirm in person or writing they are the same individual who
filled out a temporary ballot on Election Day. The time
limits vary: They range anywhere from up to three days after
the election (Georgia) to noon the Monday after the election
(Indiana).

Are there any exceptions to the photo ID
requirement?

Yes. Indigency or religious objections to being photographed.
But these exceptions don't automatically grant a voter the
ability to cast a regular ballot: In Pennsylvania and Indiana,
voters will be given a provisional ballot and must sign an
affidavit for their exemption within the given time frame.
For a more specific breakdown of all exceptions, see
this state-by-state
summary.

Why is the Justice Department getting involved in
some cases?

Because of Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that states
with a history of discrimination receive preclearance before
making changes to voting laws. Texas and South
Carolina passed strict photo ID laws in 2011 but
were refused preclearance by the DOJ, which argued that these
laws could suppress turnout among minority voters.

Texas went
to court recently seeking judicial preclearance from
a federal district court; a three-judge panel of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to
issue a decision by the end of the summer. South
Carolina heads to oral arguments in the same court
in September.

Are there any other legal challenges to such laws
currently in the works?

The ACLU has filed
a lawsuit to prevent the Pennsylvania voter ID law,
signed into law by Republican Gov. Tom
Corbett in March, from taking effect. The lawsuit claims
that elderly, disabled, low-income people and the homeless,
plus married women who have changed their names, transgender
individuals, and students who have photo IDs that don't list
an expiration date, will find it difficult to obtain proper
ID before the November election.

In the latest development, the DOJ has now launched an
investigation into Pennsylvania's photo ID law. As first
reported by Talking
Points Memo, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division sent the
state's chief election official a
letter Monday afternoon requesting 16 separate
items, including the state's complete voter registration
list, any documents supporting the governor's prior assurance
that "99 percent" of the state's eligible voters already have
acceptable photo ID, any papers to prove the state is
prepared to provide registered voters with ID cards free of
charge upon oath or affirmation, and any studies that inform
state officials of the "demographic characteristics" of
residents who lack valid voter ID.

The DOJ letter states it needs these documents within 30 days
to evaluate the state's compliance with Section
2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids voting
practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or
membership in a language minority group.

Have any states attempted to enact strict voter ID
laws but so far been unsuccessful?

Yes. In Wisconsin, two judges have
blocked enforcement of the state's photo ID law. An
appeal in one case won't be heard until after the November
election. Meantime, Democratic governors in Minnesota,
Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina have vetoed
strict photo ID bills passed by their Republican-led
legislatures last year.

Are there other voter ID laws in effect that ask for
but don't necessarily require photo ID?

Yes. In these so-called "non-strict photo ID states" —
Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Idaho, South Dakota and Hawaii
— individuals are requested to show photo ID but can still
vote if they don't have one. Instead, they may be asked to
sign affidavits affirming their identity or provide a
signature that will be compared with those in registration
records.

Why has there been such a recent surge in voter ID
legislation around the country?

This
report by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice cites
primarily big Republican gains in the 2010 midterms which
turned voter ID laws into a "major legislative priority."
Aside from Rhode
Island, all voter ID legislation has been introduced by
Republican-majority legislatures.

Republican figures have championed such laws. For instance,
Mike Turzai, majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of
Representatives, recently praised
the state's legislative accomplishments at a
Republican State Committee meeting last month. "Voter ID,
which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of
Pennsylvania, done," he said.

A spokesman for Turzai, Steve Miskin, told ProPublica that
Turzai was "mischaracterized" by the press. "For the first
time in many years, you're going to have a relatively level
playing field in the presidential elections" as the result of
these new laws," Miskin said. "With all things equal, a
Republican presidential nominee in Pennsylvania has a
chance."

Correction: An earlier version of this
story said Texas went to federal court to challenge the DOJ’s
denial of preclearance. In fact, Texas filed a lawsuit
seeking preclearance from the federal district court two
months before the DOJ announced its decision. Also, some
states require a government-issued photo that does not have
to come from the federal government as first detailed.